Cheap Camera Challenge: Harold de Puymorin Makes the Most of a 3.1MP Vivitar P&S

The Cheap Camera Challenge is back, showing us once more that it takes creativity, not expensive gear, to create an interesting photograph. Pairing a cheap camera with a professional photographer, this episode puts a modest Vivitar camera into the hands of commercial and fine art photographer Harold de Puymorin.

First, the camera. The 3.1-megapixel Vivitar point-and-shoot features a modest LCD screen and decent, but not wonderful, resolution. However, the SD slot on this particular camera — presumably sent in to Kai by a viewer — was broken, and so de Puymorin had only 14 images worth of build-in memory to work with.

Kai and Puymorin seem to have a blast getting through the 14 available shots. They make the most of city streets, alleyways and buildings of Hong Kong and end up with the 14 photographs that are, unsurprisingly, quite stunning considering the crappy camera.

Here are a few of the resulting images, so you can judge for yourself:

Screen Shot 2014-09-01 at 10.22.47 AM

Screen Shot 2014-09-01 at 10.23.04 AM

Screen Shot 2014-09-01 at 10.22.55 AM

Fun and inspirational, the Cheap Camera Challenge yet again shows us that it’s mind over matter when it comes to creating an intriguing and beautiful photograph.

To keep up with DigitalRev, head on over to their YouTube channel and subscribe. And if you’d like to revisit past Cheap Camera Challenges, check out our previous coverage by clicking here.

  • Ashley Brazell

    You also need a strong understanding of Photoshop to what he did there. Granted they aren’t hard, just simple masking, but still it’s not like he’s doing that stuff in camera. I still enjoy these videos. They’re fun.

  • David Hardman

    I’d like to see these guys go all the way and take pictures with one of those disposable instamatic film cameras you can buy in newsagents and tourist shops.

  • Matt King

    I think they meant ‘Vivitar PoS’


  • Will

    Whilst entertaining, one must realise this genre of shots is the photography equivalent of killing a fly – you simply don’t need advanced equipment.

    I’d like to see them try to shoot a wedding ceremony where it’s almost pitch black and there is a strict no flash policy applied, that is when having a modern full frame camera with usable high ISOs become handy.

    Or when you’re shooting sports, better/more suited equipment will certain yield much more keepers regardless of one’s skill level.

    There are types of photography that are equipment taxing and there are those that aren’t, it’s simple.

  • carmenccoronel

    S­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­a­­­­­­­­­r­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ w­­­­­­­­­o­­­­­­­­­rk­­­­­­­­­in­­­­­­­­­g a­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­ ho­­­­­­­­­m­­­­­­­­­e w­­­­­­­­­it­­­­­­­­­h G­­­­­­­­­oo­­­­­­­­­gl­­­­­­­­­e! It­­­­­­­­­’s by-­­­­­­­­­far­­­­­­­­­ the­­­­­­­­­ best­­­­­­­­­ j­­­­­­­­­ob­­­­­­­­­ I’v­­­­­­­­­e ha­­­­­­­­­d­­­­­­­­­. ­­­­­­­­­Last­­­­­­­­­Thurs­­­­­­­­­day­­­­­­­­­ I­­­­­­­­­ go­­­­­­­­­t ­­­­­­­­­a bran­­­­­­­­­d­­­ n­­­­­­­­­ew BM­­­­­­­­­W ­­­­­­­­­since­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­getti­­­­­­­­­ng­­­­­­­­­ a­­­­­­­­­ che­­­­­­­­­ck­­­­­­­­­ for­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­$­­­­­­­­­6­­­­­­­­­474­­­­­­­­­ thi­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­ – ­­­­­­­­­4­­­­­­­­­ wee­­­­­­­­­ks p­­­­­­­­­ast­­­­­­­­­. I­­­­­­­­­ began­­­­­­­­­ this­­­­­­­­­ 8-months­­­­­­­­­ ago­­­­­­­­­ and­­­­­­­­­ immediately­­­­­­­­­ was­­­­­­­­ ­bringing­­­­­­­­­ home­­­­­­­­­ at­­­­­­­­­ least­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­$­­­­­­­­­7­­­­­­­­­7­­­­­­­­­ pe­­­­­­­­­r ho­­­­­­­­­ur­­­­­­­­­. I­­­­­­­­­ work­­­­­­­­­ through­­­­­­­­­ this­­­­­­ ­­ link­­­­­­­­­, g­­­­­­­­­o? t­­­­­­­­­o tech­­­­­­­­­ tab­­­­­­­­­ for­­­­­­­­­ work­­­­­­­­­ detail,,,,,,,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://t­i­n­y­l­i­n­k.n­e­t/07eu3


  • Chris Malmberg

    I don’t think they are suggesting that professional photographers can get by without quality equipment. The idea is that if you are just getting into photography, you don’t need to buy super expensive gear. And I think they prove that time and time again.

  • Amin

    Er… he did the stuff in camera! It is trick photography and no Photoshop was involved.

  • Josh

    That’s not true, he used photoshop to mask out the people under the Cloth/materials. Very very basic photoshopping
    but some is still involved